Planning board backs Park North 120-unit apartments despite neighbor safety, traffic concerns

The City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 26 voted to recommend City Council approval of the Park North project, a proposed 120‑unit multifamily development on a roughly 5‑acre parcel east of Power Road and north of Guadalupe Road, despite extensive neighborhood opposition focused on traffic and school‑drop‑off safety.

City planning staff described the proposal as limited commercial (LC) zoning with a Planned Area Development overlay and a council use permit to allow multifamily residential where ground‑floor commercial area requirements would be modified. Staff found the project generally consistent with the Mesa 2040 General Plan and recommended approval with conditions, including several technical PAD deviations tied to the site’s flood‑control canal and proximity to Monterey Park.

John Gillespie, a land‑use attorney for the applicant, said the site has been repeatedly marketed for commercial uses since its 2010 rezoning to LC and that the project team’s economic analysis indicates sufficient vacant retail nearby to meet demand. Gillespie said the site’s single allowed bridge across a Maricopa County Flood Control District canal, deed restrictions and constraints on alcohol sales reduce the parcel’s commercial viability, and that the proposed residential development would generate less traffic than the previously approved office/retail plan.

Neighbors from Superstition Springs and adjacent subdivisions made extensive public comment. Common concerns included the narrow window of notice for a second neighborhood meeting, a perceived surge in proposed units compared with earlier concepts, insufficient setback and height deviations, greater traffic at the Guadalupe/Power intersection — which sits near Highland Junior High — and the potential for overflow parking into Monterey Park.

Traffic and safety were central in public comment. Andrew Clayton, a neighborhood resident, cited recent crashes and a student injury at the Power‑Guadalupe intersection and urged the board to delay or deny the proposal. Several residents asked the board to recommend the city acquire the property for park expansion instead; others called for deeper study of crash history and school operations during peak drop‑off and pickup hours.

The applicant provided an independent traffic analysis by Summit Engineering. Paul Basha, the project traffic consultant, said he reviewed Arizona Department of Transportation collision data and reported that the Power/Guadalupe intersection had 26 collisions in 2023; he noted that other nearby intersections had similar or higher collision counts. Ryan Hudson, City of Mesa traffic engineer, told the board the city is conducting a comprehensive safety action plan that analyzes collisions and identifies mitigations; he said the city will pursue safety strategies where trends indicate need, independent of any single development.

The applicant’s site plan shows four three‑story buildings with 120 units total, a clubhouse/leasing building, required parking (252 spaces) and 122 covered spaces, pedestrian connections into Monterey Park, and landscape improvements coordinated with the flood control district and the City of Mesa Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant committed to install new trees along the park edge, provide 18 electric vehicle charging stations and enter a development agreement to maintain landscaping on the park side for a defined period before the city assumes maintenance.

City staff and the applicant emphasized that the proposed multifamily use is allowed in LC zoning with a council use permit and asserted the planned development will create fewer vehicle trips than commercial development previously approved for the site. Design Review praised the project’s architecture but recommended one park access instead of two because of planned future improvements in Monterey Park.

After discussion the board voted to recommend approval to the City Council with the conditions contained in the staff report. The vote was unanimous among members present. The project now moves to the City Council for final action; the record shows extensive public opposition and requests for further safety review and additional outreach.